Pentagon Cancels Internet Voting System

Ben B writes "The Pentagon won't use an Internet voting system for overseas U.S. citizens this fall because of concerns about its security, an official said Thursday. The official, who requested anonymity, said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the decision to scrap the system because Pentagon officials were not certain they could 'assure the legitimacy of votes that would be cast.' Computer security experts who last month reviewed the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE, had urged the Pentagon to scrap the system, saying it was too vulnerable."

Comments

Re:I really have to question

[Billy the Mountain]

I disagree. You can solve all manner of these types of problems using certificates with high encryption strength.

BTM

This issue doesn't apper to be closed after all

[Flexagon]

This more complete article has a quote that suggests this issue really isn't closed after all:

Wolfowitz's memo, written to David Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, allows the Pentagon to continue work already in progress to look into "other technical applications for voting on the Internet or electronically," the defense official said.

"The door is still open to other methods. It's just that the SERVE we have decided not to use," he said.

Good call

[spun]

Not everyone in the US government is a nimrod or a thief. There are plenty of shady goings on, but no over-arching nefarious conspiracies. Certainly, it looks bad when most electronic voting companies donate to Republicans, get contracts from same, and then leave holes in their software, but I think the conspiracy ends at graft and cronyism, not deliberate vote fraud. The companies donate to the Republicans knowing they will get lucrative contracts. The security issues are a seperate problem.

Electronic voting at polling places could be implemented securely, but it would be VERY difficult to make a secure voting system that meets all of our (US) requirements and runs over the Internet.

Re:Why trust internet banking then?

[stratjakt]

Banks are insured. Elections aren't.

Re:I really have to question

[MuParadigm]

"...George W. won all of the recounts, including ones done by the independent press..."

Actually, not to get into the argument of whether there was a fix or not, but the independent press tally came up with different winners, depending on how the vote was counted.

Ironically, using the counting method that the Democrats recommended would have resulted in a Bush victory, and using the counting method advocated by the Republicans would have resulted in a Gore victory.

But then the Supreme Court stepped in at the Republicans request, called off the recounts, and gave the victory to Bush. So the proper counting method for the recounts became a moot issue.

Re:The pentagon counts votes??? You must be kiding

[caudron]

the idea to let the armed forces have anything to do with overseeing voting seems both ridiculous and dangerous.

The Pentagon has an interest in this because these votes are the overseas ballots for the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Pentagon's job is to make sure there is a reasonable way for their people to get a say in the government back home. They are not involved in the vote tally itself. This is just the Pentagon saying that this method is not acceptable to them. A legitimate and sane response, given the known security risks.

Re:More likely...

[zhar]

All our soldiers that are U.S. citizens (at least in my unit) are required to vote. If an absentee/overseas ballot is not turned in by every soldier, the LT's and company commanders catch hell.